– Amal Suhail
The current negotiations are going through a very delicate stage, in which military operations are intertwined with regional and international political pressures. The internal debate is intensifying over the terms of any possible negotiating path, while the priority remains for a ceasefire before any other formula.
Absolute refusal to negotiate under fire
Sources close to Hezbollah confirm that its position is clear and decisive: refusing to negotiate under fire in any way, whether directly or indirectly, in addition to rejecting direct negotiations in principle in the current circumstances.
According to the same sources, the third disagreement lies in going to negotiations in light of Israel’s announcement of its ambitions about “10 kilometers” inside Lebanese territory, and under the pressure of military operations, as the enemy continues to impose field events, including encircling the city of Bint Jbeil and trying to control it.
The sources ask: “How can the fighter today in Bint Jbeil accept a ceasefire and negotiations at a time when the Israelis are launching an attack on him?”
You see that Israel is trying to impose its conditions, but unfortunately the Lebanese negotiator does not pay attention to the necessity of going to negotiations with a unified national position. The sources mention that the official Lebanese side claims that “the unified national position is the source of strength,” but at the same time it does not go to Washington with a unified position, especially since significant forces, including the resistance, refuse to negotiate under fire.
What is being proposed tomorrow is “ceasefire contact,” not negotiations
The sources clarify that what is being discussed about what will happen tomorrow is not negotiations, but rather is limited to a “contact” whose primary goal is to request a ceasefire, with the Israeli response being based on determining the next path.
Regarding this request, and whether it was preceded by communication between the party and the Presidency of the Republic, the sources indicate that no direct communication was recorded in this context with the first or second presidency. It confirms that the position of the Shiite duo on the negotiations was communicated to the President of the Republic through President Nabih Berri, refusing to negotiate under fire, whatever the circumstances, and that the President, in this atmosphere, reflects the view of the duo on the part related to the ceasefire.
But the sources stop at a basic point, which is that the President of the Republic, who is entrusted with the constitution and the country, is responsible for not accepting negotiation under fire, because he is the son of the military institution and knows exactly what it means to negotiate under fire militarily, in addition to being the son of the South that is being destroyed today before his eyes.
Internal dissatisfaction and escalating political differences
Regarding the campaign against Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, against the backdrop of his position and the government’s decisions, the sources do not consider it a campaign as much as it is a case of popular dissatisfaction with the government, for its rejection of Iran’s request from the United States for a ceasefire in Lebanon as a condition for going to negotiations, under the pretext that Lebanon is negotiating for itself, which was translated, according to the sources, on Wednesday into a massacre in Beirut and the regions.
The sources ask about the Prime Minister’s position: “How can an official accept dealing in this way that makes the Israelis go further and further?”
It indicates that tensions with the Grand Serail have now decreased, because the party was not concerned with the calls for demonstrations that occurred, and this was announced in a joint statement with the Amal Movement.
President Berri was surprised
As for the position taken against the Amal Movement and President Berri, in terms of talking about stripping the party of the legitimacy of its resistance in the Council of Ministers, the sources believe that, regardless of the circumstances that called for this position, the matter has been addressed and overcome.
She pointed out that President Berri, who was surprised by the missiles on the first day, was also surprised by the resistance’s readiness to fight, which made field stability an essential factor in adjusting the situation.
The field escalation is linked to the regional track
As for the possibilities of a ceasefire, the sources rule out that this will happen tomorrow, but the picture may become clearer until next week, with the date of a new round of negotiations between the Americans and the Iranians.
It indicates that if Israel achieves field progress or considers itself to have succeeded in controlling Bint Jbeil, it may resort to declaring a ceasefire, justifying this before the Israeli interior.
Regarding the possibility of controlling Bint Jbeil, the sources do not rule out this scenario in light of the presence of three brigades, meaning “about 45 thousand soldiers,” with heavy air cover, which makes the possibility exist.
As for the duration of the war, the sources believe that its path remains closely linked to the path of regional negotiations, especially between the United States and Iran. If a settlement is reached, the war will stop, but if the negotiations do not lead to results, the war will be long.
